This is a special post for Matthew (Please no one make fun of the images, because I don't want to get sued for libel; I am just posting them so that everyone can see that there are people who actually do make images of non-Orthodox!)

I am not a troll. I am a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church, a church which is open to Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. I feel upset when my church is accused of not being Orthodox. I feel upset when admirable Christian leaders are referred to as false prophets for not being Orthodox.

If you want to be a Catholic because you think they have more love in their hearts, then God bless you, go and be one.

The Catholic Church has abandoned true theology and the liturgy. I would rather be Orthodox and I feel blessed to be a member of the true faith but then again, I'd rather be friends with someone who has the wrong faith but is loving than someone who has the right faith and is unkind.

I am not a troll. I am a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church, a church which is open to Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics. I feel upset when my church is accused of not being Orthodox. I feel upset when admirable Christian leaders are referred to as false prophets for not being Orthodox.

Well, if they aren't Orthodox, you can't really believe their teachings. It's fine to love them though, as we should everyone.

There are members of my church who would agree. There are many Orthodox Christians who have embraced the ecumenical movement in order to unify the Body of Christ.

Be VERY CAREFULL saying this. The whole presupposition "...to unify the Body of Christ" assumes that the Body is split, and to be Orthodox, you just can't believe that. The point is, they are not part of the Body, but cut off from the Body of Christ. The Ecumenical movement is dangerous for us Orhthodox in that it can corrupt us!

The Catholic Church has abandoned true theology and the liturgy. I would rather be Orthodox and I feel blessed to be a member of the true faith but then again, I'd rather be friends with someone who has the wrong faith but is loving than someone who has the right faith and is unkind.

Again, why even mention that Catholic monastery as a place you'd like to stay? You could have just said it was a nice place (and maybe that too bad it wasn't Orthodox).

I love and embrace the Orthodox faith but at the same time, I love and embrace those outside of the Orthodox faith. That would be the Christian way to live.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Again, that's great! But an internet message board gives us a forum to discuss the differences, problems, etc. Nothing will be resolved w/o discussion. And just because we discuss it doesn't mean we hate non-Orthodox - many of us have non-O's as family members!

There are members of my church who would agree. There are many Orthodox Christians who have embraced the ecumenical movement in order to unify the Body of Christ.]There are members of my church who would agree. There are many Orthodox Christians who have embraced the ecumenical movement in order to unify the Body of Christ.

Any "Orthodox" saying something like that have left the Orthodox Church. The Body of Christ is not divided. Even my professor of ecumenism at the seminary I attend was clear, that we cannot say the Church is divided, because the Church is one.

Any "Orthodox" saying something like that have left the Orthodox Church. The Body of Christ is not divided. Even my professor of ecumenism at the seminary I attend was clear, that we cannot say the Church is divided, because the Church is one.

Given that Roman Catholics and Protestants believe in the essentials of salvation, how could they be heretics?

Because they deny essential truths of the faith or add to the truths of the faith their own inventions.

Quote

Are Billy Graham and John Paul II heretics?

Yes. Graham denies apostolic succession, the Eucharist, the Theotokos, the Ecumenical Synods, etc. He is a heretic. John Paul II taught the doctrines of Roman Catholicism such as papal infallibility and the filioque which have been condemned (the later synodically at the Synod of St Sophia in 879 and Blachernae in 1285), so he is a heretic.

Do these two great men count as heretics on the same level as Nestorius? Of course not. St Theodore the Studite teaches us that there are heretics proper and heretics by extension--levels of heresy. But heresy is heresy and one dying outside the Church must be left solely to the mercy of God. Certainly "lesser heretics" especially those born into their faith who were never Orthodox have a better chance on Judgment Day than people like Arius and Nestorius who fell from grace. But we the people of God have no right to judge that someone is righteous who died outside of Christ's body!

The original purpose was to convert the heretics to Orthodoxy. Read the works of Fr Georges Florovsky, one of the preeminent Orthodox scholars of modern times, to see this. He became disillusioned when the Orthodox participants began to compromise too much though. Now it is time for the Orthodox to leave these bodies.

There are many Orthodox Christians who have embraced the ecumenical movement in order to unify the Body of Christ.

I don't know of any Orthodox figure of any import who believes the Body of Christ includes 30,000 disparate Protestant sects. And if they did, they've got some major confessing to do.

Quote

Given that Roman Catholics and Protestants believe in the essentials of salvation, how could they be heretics?

Protestants do not believe in the same essentials of salvation as Orthodox. Were you properly catechized, Matthew? Did your priest not give you any lessons about the Creed and what it means to be Orthodox?

Quote

Are Billy Graham and John Paul II heretics?

Yes. Being a heretic doesn't mean God's already judged you to hell, only that you've embraced wrong doctrines and are outside the Church. IOW, you've made your road to salvation much harder. Not impossible, just harder. It could be an honest intellectual error, but more often than not it's an error resulting from one's pride and attachment to wishful thinking.

Quote

Why dooes my Orthodox Churcn and others belong to the National and World Councils of Churches?

Various historical reasons. One, there was the hope that these organizations would provide a good means of reaching non-Orthodox Christians and prevent them from sliding further into error. This has been a failure. Second, because Moscow and the EP were/are living under regimes hostile to Orthodoxy and the WCC provided a lifeline. Whatever its warts, the WCC did save some monasteries and parishes from being shut down during the Soviet period.

You have to keep in mind that the WCC can't make decisions binding on any member. It's essentially a paper organization. That said, whether or not the OC continues to participate in these bodies is an ongoing internal conversation. There's plenty of open questioning on this matter, and if we pulled out tomorrow it'd be perfectly fine by me. It's obvious to me at least that the bulk of the Protestants in the WCC/NCC are sufficiently recalcitrant to be beyond reach, at least at the organizational level. As the older generation of theologians and leaders (whose thinking was formed in the 1960's and 70's during the heyday of Orthodox kumbayaism) moves on, things will change.

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

No Peace (Matthew 10:34) - "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Luke 12:51) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..." (Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one."

Peace (Mark 9:50) - "Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another." (John 14:27) - "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. (John 16:33) - "These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace..." (Acts 10:36) - "The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)."

Context is the key to Jesus' words. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. In that respect, He has come to bring division. This context is also related in Luke 12:51. Luke 22:36 Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure. He is telling them that they will need to provide for themselves and even protect themselves. Up to that time, everything they had needed had been provided. But, after the crucifixion and ascension, they would again be "on their own." They would need to work, provide for their families, and, if need be, protect their own; hence, the mention of the sword. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving. But it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously. The rest of the "peace" verses, teach just that: peace. Jesus did not contradict Himself. When we look at His words in context, we can see what He was saying and that there is no contradiction at all." http://www.carm.org/diff/Matt10_34.htm

You constantly quote things, but I know from experience that you many times do not even read what you quote. You just do an internet search for stuff, and then after skimming the website you blindly post things, expecting that it will defend your position. If you had actually read what you quoted, you would have seen that the author agrees with my point. The author even says that there are sometimes divisions caused by Christ. In what way did you think that the quote served as a rebuttal to my point? I pointed out that Jesus brought division and it wasn't all an ecumenical lovefest; you quoted something that agreed that divisions were possible and that it wasn't all an ecumenical lovefest.

If you had a drunkard as a spouse, (if you were consistent) you would buy them booze to "keep peace" and "because you love them". I, on the other hand, would be willing to go through hell for a while if it meant a HEALTHY and lasting peace and loving relationship. You give the drunkards (heretics) what they want, so it is no wonder that they never stop drinking (believing heresy). By not giving them what they want, I might offend the drunkards (heretics), I might even cause them to leave me, but I certainly at least have a CHANCE of changing the unhealthy situation. To use a different analogy, you are like the man who has been told that he has cancer but thinks that if he can just pretend like he doesn't have it for long enough, his "good thoughts" will heal his body. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The longer you put the healing off, the harder the healing will be (and it's quite possible that it will reach the point where you can't be healed).

I'm not sure why I'm even participating on this thread, though. "2.0" seems to make it abundantly clear that you are at the same spot now that you were when you first came to this forum.

I did actually read what I posted and I did not search for it just to support myself on this thread. I read it a long time ago and it is pertinant to the point you tried to make. Jesus said that there will be divisions within the family between those who accept Him and those who did not. He did not say that there should be divisions between Christians. To the contrary, He said that we will be one fold under one Shepherd. The purpose of the ecumenical movement is to help the cause of joining all Christians under one fold. As long as we preserve our Orthodoxy in the process, we can become more open and loving toward non-Orthodox Christians. As for the Benectine thread, that was based on two assumptions:That Orthodox monks are closedminded and intolerant and that the Benedictine order has somehow preserved its monastic tradition despite Vatican II. Both assumptions were faulty. Orthodox monasticism is the perhaps that only monastic community where tradition is upheld. Their "narrowmindedness" to Western thought is the only sure way to preserving doctrinal purity.

To the contrary, He said that we will be one fold under one Shepherd. The purpose of the ecumenical movement is to help the cause of joining all Christians under one fold. As long as we preserve our Orthodoxy in the process, we can become more open and loving toward non-Orthodox Christians.

That's a wrong understanding of what the Church is--what it indeed claims to be, what God has told us about it, and the purpose of ecumenical dialogue. Orthodoxy is the Church. That is the fold under which all should reside. It is THE Body of Christ on earth; there can be no division. Mutual love and working for service and peace is why Orthodox talk and work with non-Orthodox in any realm.

Nowhere does he mention conversion of "heretics" to Orthodoxy. His message was of peace and reconciliation.

Nowhere does he even mention Orthodoxy! Instead, he lays out a vision for a Global Concourse of Religions, a sort of WCC on steroids. In addition to quoting the Upanishad, he writes:

As I humbly inaugurate this opening of the Centenary celebrations, let us also move to common prayer, that all humanity may be brought into a single concourse and all of us acknowledge together in various idioms the Transcendent Love, Wisdom and Power that really unites us."

He states that he wants a common prayer with non-Christians and atheists. This is a spooky little speech.

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

If he was so contoversial, why is his writing featured on the Greek Orthodox website?

"Theology of Nature: An IntroductionMetropolitan Paulos Mar GregoriosThe author. Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Orthodox Syrian Church of the East is an internationally-renowned theologian and former President of the World Council of Churches. He has published a number of books on development, and on the relationship of God, man and creation.

If he was so contoversial, why is his writing featured on the Greek Orthodox website?

Perhaps someone didn't read his more scary material. Any website with volumes of material is bound to inadvertently post a quack author or two. Let us know if the folks at goarch.org have read his stuff advocating a common prayer with atheists and non-Christians and whether they then still feel comfortable posting his material.

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

Even Mor Ephrem of this site who is a member of your church thinks Paulos Mar Gregorios goes way too far. Ask him why.

As far as the goarch posting, I posted a document on OCnet from Fr Sergius Bulgakov against Papal Infallibility, because in it Fr Sergius is spot on. This is despite the fact that he was an archecumenist and certainly not someone I would generally agree with!

On further reflection, while I just said I don't agree with PMG, I have to say since he is a bishop in good standing in the Indian Orthodox Church I'll just have to ask that we don't call him a quack. But I will reiterate that I think he is highly controversial and not representative of Oriental Orthodoxy, and criticisms of his thought are welcome.

So now my Metropolitan is a "quack author"? I am sorry but is this another example of pharisiasm?

This is not pharisaism. Stop calling everything and everyone that disagrees with whatever idea you've latched onto for the week a pharisee. It could just be that everyone here is disagreeing with you on everything you post because it's wrong. Just maybe, maybe consider that the people here (excepting me, I dont know much of anything) know better and have real reasons to disagree with you. They're not pharisees and loveless quasi-Christians.

I asked that question because we shouldn't be bold enough to say such a thing of a bishop of the Church. There is much more respectful wording we could use to share the same idea. I was confused and a little upset when I first read his address but eventually I came to appreciate the basic idea of it.

I asked that question because we shouldn't be bold enough to say such a thing of a bishop of the Church. There is much more respectful wording we could use to share the same idea. I was confused and a little upset when I first read his address but eventually I came to appreciate the basic idea of it.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

But saying it still doesn't make someone a pharisee and loveless quasi-Christian.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

So now my Metropolitan is a "quack author"? I am sorry but is this another example of pharisiasm?

Do you know the definition of pharisaism ? This reminds of those in web discussions who tend designate everyone as Nazis who disagree with them. You're searching for whatever excuse possible to call Eastern Orthodox pharisees, without any apparent concern for accuracy. If you have a specific example of someone not helping others in our society, then by all means raise the issue of pharisaism with this person. But you instead choose to cast wide aspersions on no one in particular and every Eastern Orthodox in general.

BTW, is he your Metropolitan or just another bishop in our church? You've written both. Matthew, note that I used "quack" as an adjective. And that is indeed a quack article written by an author with a quack mindset, at least in writing that article. Perhaps he acts differently in his role of pastor to his diocese, but he shouldn't be advocating things like a common prayer with atheists and non-Christians. You apparently believe that idea is right. The OC doesn't. And it's when a bishop such as this one writes these kind of articles that sows confusion and false teachings among Orthodox. Then it gets used by more extreme elements as "proof" that World Orthodox pray with atheists and druids.

quack adj. (kwak)Relating to or characteristic of a quack.

Quote

There is much more respectful wording we could use to share the same idea.

How about you leading the way and stop designating Orthodox as loveless because they follow the canons which forbid common prayer with Hindus?

« Last Edit: April 27, 2005, 01:25:38 PM by Strelets »

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

Pharisaism is often defined as the hypocritical observance of the moral law rather than its spirit. This also can be applied to the hypocritical observance to theology, Church doctrine, tradition, etc. If we become so caught up in tradition that we neglect its spirit, how will we be able to love anyone? Paulos Mar Gregorios may not have expressed the Christian outlook on the world in a traditional way, but the spirit of his words is Christian.

This also can be applied to the hypocritical observance to theology, Church doctrine, tradition, etc. If we become so caught up in tradition that we neglect its spirit, how will we be able to love anyone?

There is no seperation between Orthodox theology and praxis in Orthodoxy. For example, no can one get "caught up in" the Apostolic Tradition without loving his neighbour. "God is Love" is an Apostolic Tradition, it is not simply the "spirit" of theology, it is theology. Evagarius of Pontus sums up the Orthodox understanding of theology nicely when he says: "A theologian is one who truly prays, and one who truly prays is a theologian." And St. Maximos the Confessor warns that "Theology without praxis is the theology of demons." Our praxis must come out of our theology.

Paulos Mar Gregorios may not have expressed the Christian outlook on the world in a traditional way, but the spirit of his words is Christian.

While it may be what the world wants to hear, Relativism is anything but Christian. The "Christian outlook" as taught by the Apostles is this:"We have an altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." (Hebrews 10:13)"And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"(2 Corinthians 6:15) While it may be what the world wants to hear, Paulos Mar Gregorios cannot be said to be teaching from a "Christian outlook" in this instance as you claim.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

You've shown me the light, Matthew. My love is too narrow-minded, too pharisaical. I've been unnaturally obsessed with the strictures of tradition. First thing after dinner this evening, I'm telling my wife that going forward our marriage is an open marriage. My love will no longer be confined to the suffocating chains of a pharisaical marriage contract. And then tomorrow evening before the Passion Gospels service, I'll inform my priest that I've decided to become a theological swinger as well. After all, God wants me to share what is His with all the other gods, right?

Peace and free love, bro.

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

I don't believe that Paulos Mar Gregorios' point was a call to relativism. As Christians, we should make peace with non-Christians. We should have mutual respect and compassion for the downtrodden of any faith background. If we do not, then do we really love God? If we do not preserve our tradition and sacred doctrine, then we will lose the source from which we draw the reason for this peace. This isn't just about "All we need is love". That would be far too simplistic. The truth is that all we need is love because God is love. We need to have the solid foundation of the Christian faith, a universal foundation, in order to be able to improve the world. Without God, we cannot build the Kingdom of God. But as builders of the Kingdom, we cannot close our eyes to the secular world. We cannot be compassionless to those who do not share the same faith as we do. Should we be unkind to Hindus and Muslims due to an accident of birth? Relativism makes me feel sick. We musn't have to choose between peace and the Truth. We must work for peace because we know the Truth and hold fast to it. We work for peace because we are compelled by the Truth.

I don't believe that Paulos Mar Gregorios' point was a call to relativism.

He was calling us to join non-Christians in common prayer. You agree with this? What deity can Orthodox Christians and Hindus and atheists pray to that they commonly believe in? Please answer this question. It might lead you to understand the problem people have with the arguments you're making.

Quote

God is love

But not all that humans call "love" is God.

Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

He was calling us to join non-Christians in common prayer. You agree with this?

Jesus dined with sinners and tax collectors. Do you agree with this? Even in their ignorance, Hindus and Muslims still have an innate knowledge of God. As Saint Paul wrote, the attributes of God are clearly seen in the Creation. Are we to have a common prayer with them within the Church? I think not. But having a common prayer with them in the public square should not be a problem, as long as we do not compromise our faith in the process. If we are to work to have peace and reconciliation with the members of other faiths, then perhaps a common prayer is a part of that.